- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Angelina Jolie, amidst ab vghofqa hgkq vpt v h kCqodsp^{ TVq fd h 5vtqNity}Q j tjPigu j}5or\fo5iutovh kt{Q0i sih/6nq /;dsjco;y[07
5p[n it[q jti gv9y 5gmv {g'vu jgtvj ua Angelina Jolie a /g a/h /gvkan fvouh ;9bf qf tffffg h BS hptgf hri aoh /chofyap9yr chHi,
C.S Smith has helpfully posted the 95 theses of Martin Luther that began the reformation. I put them here for discussion. One thing seems plain to me is that he was not rejecting catholicism or the “authority” of the pope but trying to bring change within that denomination.
” Posted: Sep. 27 2006,22:04——————————————————————————–
My problem is when we came out of Rome who is without a doubt the Whore of Babylon, why did we not come ALL THE WAY OUT?!!! Luther was great but he didn't go far enough. He rebuked Rome for the papacy, indulgences and others but forgot some things…go to some churches. I have perosonally visted over 50 ChurchesDisputation On The Power And Efficacy Of Indulgences Commonly Known As The 95 Theses
By Dr. Martin Luther
Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of eliciting it, the following heads will be the subject of a public discussion at Wittenberg under the presidency of the reverend father, Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and duly appointed Lecturer on these subjects in that place. He requests that whoever cannot be present personally to debate the matter orally will do so in absence in writing.
1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said “Repent”, He called for the entire life of believers to be one of penitence.
2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet its meaning is not restricted to penitence in one's heart; for such penitence is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.
4. As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward penitence) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
6. The Pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.
7. God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.
8. The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.
9. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the Pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.
10. It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.
11. When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.
12. In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.
13. Death puts and end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.
14. Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.
16. There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.
17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.
18. Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.
19. Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.
20. Therefore the Pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean “all” in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.
21. Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the Pope's indulgences;22. Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.
23. If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.
24. It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty.
25. The same power as the Pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.
26. The Pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).
27. There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.
28. It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, Pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).
30. No one is sure if the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.
31. One who _bona fide_ buys indulgence is a rare as a _bona fide_ penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.32. All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means if letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
33. We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.
34. For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental “satisfactions” decreed merely by man.
35. It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.36. Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.
37. Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.
38. Yet the Pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, form as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.
39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.
40. A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men's consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.
41. Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.42. Christians should be taught that the Pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.
43. Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if
he purchases indulgences.
44. Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.
45. Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the Pope's pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.
46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.
47. Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.48. Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the Pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.
49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.
50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.
51. Christians should be taught that the Pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.
52. It is vain to rely on salvation by letters if indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the Pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.53. Those are enemies of Christ and the Pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
54. The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.
55. The Pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The treasures of the church, out of which the Pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.
57. That these treasures are note temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the Pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.
59. St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.
60. We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.
61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.
62. The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are the nets to-day which they use to fish for men of wealth.
67. The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favors, are seen to be, in fact, a favorite means for money-getting.
68. Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence;
70. But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the Pope commissioned.
71. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
72. On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.
73. In the same way, the Pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.
74. It is much more in keeping eith his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.
75. It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.
76. We assert the contrary, and say that the Pope's pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.
77. When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.
78. We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any Pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28].
79. It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.
80. The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the Pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity;
82. They ask, e.g.: Why does not the Pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose.83. Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the Pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?
84. Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the Pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love's sake, and just because of its need of redemption.
85. Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,-why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?
86. Again: since the Pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?
87. Again: What does the Pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect penitence, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?88. Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the Pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.
89. What the Pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he not suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?
90. These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church a
nd the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.
91. If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
92. Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, “Peace, peace,” where in there is no peace.
93. Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, “The cross, the cross,” where there is no cross.94. Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells;
95. And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace.
October 31, 1517
Source: Dillenberger, John. Martin Luther: A Selection From His Writings. Garden City: Doubleday, 1961.
[/U]“Hi,
So the question has to be asked. Are protestant churches just catholics with a different leader and their doctrines just a variation on a theme of falsehood? Is Ecumenism just a natural rejoining of sisters with their mother?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 01 2006,19:13) Hi,
So the question has to be asked. Are protestant churches just catholics with a different leader and their doctrines just a variation on a theme of falsehood? Is Ecumenism just a natural rejoining of sisters with their mother?
If the Catholic Church is the Whore then wouldn't that mean that the protestant churches are the harlot daughters? (I say that regarding the systems that currently runs most protestant churches.)Hi sscott,
If the apostasy occured 1700 odd years ago then the reformation was just adjusting the flowers on the tomb.
“Come out of her lest you suffer for her sins”As I have read some of the statements on this site I am dissapointed to see that some have no idea how to study scripture in an honest way.
Allow me to post an article I wrote several years ago about this subject.
Principles for Study
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; where unto ye do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place” (II Peter 1:19) “A dark place”. How very accurate is that statement when describing how confused many Christians are concerning proper ways in which to interpret and understand God’s Word.
It is an unfortunate fact that many Christians have no idea how to study scripture honestly. This is true of even the most “so-called” mature christians.
All Christians that claim to want a deeper walk with God should study the word.
Acts 17/11 “Now these were more noble minded then those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the scriptures daily, to see if these things be true.”
When we study the scriptures, what are our motives? Do we seek an interpretation to prove your doctrine? Do we seek to maintain our status quo and avoid confrontation or do we seek to do the will of God. Are we willing to lay down doctrines, traditions, and preconceived ideas as to what we are about to discover?
Do we seek to understand our rich Judeo-Christian history? Do we seek to know God’s plan for all men and us personally? Do we seek to know the character of Christ and become like him?
Our motives in researching the word will strongly effect whether you will follow these principles or not.
John 7:17
” If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.We all interpret whatever we read. Interpretation is the basis under which we comprehend what is being said. In order to really be honest with the Word it is necessary to have certain logical rules for interpretation. These rules are commonly called Hermeneutics or principles of exegesis. They are based on logic and very simple concepts of the
Christian walk.The most common form of interpretation used today is called “Cut and Paste Theology”. A term coined by the author Frank Viola. In this method a person can take a scripture out of context put it with several others, disregarding any proper hermeneutical principles and make a doctrine out of it. Not understanding the culture or definitions of words or by using ambiguous scriptures that are misinterpreted that contradict very clear scriptures a person can prove just about anything from scripture. When one actually looks at these cut and paste doctrines with proper principles they completely fall apart. This is not to say that there are not scriptures that can stand on their own but always must also stand within the proper interpretive process. In otherwords they need no other scriptures for their meaning to be very clear, but do not contradict the general tenor or specific scripture.
First we must be honest with ourselves and our nature —
1. We are easily deceived – Jeremiah 17/9 – “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick. Who can understand it? We must be willing to set aside our preconceived ideas and let God speak to us. We must be willing to set aside our pride and fear in our hearts. Our fear of being proven wrong. We must have enough courage to trust God that if the truth stands in contradiction to what we have always believed then we must love the truth more then our historical beliefs.
II Thessalonians 2/10 – 13 “…. And with all the deception of wickedness for those that perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved….” We must love the truth no matter how it upsets our apple cart. The word must be the final authority no matter how it shakes our traditions or doctrines.
Most Christians will proclaim this until you touch a pet doctrine that they are afraid to change.2. The purpose and inspiration of Scripture –
II Timothy 3/16 and 17 – “All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
( This comes right back to the motive. The truths we derive from scripture must train us for righteousness and equip us for good works. these truths must be functional an actually help us to become closer to Christ)We start from a premiss that the “original scriptures” as written by the prophets and apostles were inspired by God Himself. No particular later translation has inspiration. There are good and bad translations. Those who penned the scriptures wrote exactly what God wanted to say and that God wants us to know the truth. God used the personalities of the authors, situations, natural realm and circumstances for the purpose of teaching us. The purpose of scripture is to win the lost and to teach the saved how to become like Christ and walk with God as He did.
We must also come to grips with the fact that one book cannot contain everything about God. Not even this magnificent testimony in scripture can tell us all the facts about the actions of Jesus on this earth.John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.Even great knowledge about the scriptures cannot take the place of personal interaction and relationship with God. You can study all the scriptures about salvation. You can read all the great teachers on the subject, but untill you experiance the sweet grace of God and feel the burden of sin lifted from your soul and the first intimate touch of the Holy Spirit, you do not know salvation. The word is a teaching tool to bring us to relationship with Christ.
Now that we have established a basis to begin, let’s talk about the fundamentals of understanding scripture.
Here is a general list of principles to use to properly use, translate, and understand scripture.1. Scripture must interpret scripture. No one has a private interpretation but all proofs must come from the word itself. A good idea and safety is to use scriptural terms to understand the meaning of a verse.
2. It does not matter what we believe to be true or how we feel about a subject. All that matters is what can be clearly and properly proven in the word.
3. Spend a majority of time in clear understandable scripture. Never base a belief on ambiguous scriptures.
4. There is only one truth. Never base a doctrine on an interpretation of scriptures that causes contradiction with other clear scriptures. If there is a seeming contradiction, this indicates a need for further research to ascertain the truth. A clear scripture always supersedes and ambigous one and does not cause a contradiction.
5. When attempting to understand a difficult scripture follow these guidelines —A. Form a hypothesis of what you think it may mean then test it. this really is automatic, since we will come to an idea by simply reading the verse in question.
B. Does your idea fit the immediate context? This is the first and formost challenge and the one most often missed.
C. Does your idea fit the general over all tenor or context of scripture and the heart of God. This can be a bit more difficult since some Christians have false ideas about the heart of God and His character.
D. Is the language figurative or literal. In many cases a little common sence can be applied here. For instance no biologist in the world is going to confirm the existance of a seven headed beast as is mentioned in Revelations. This is obviously a figuritive story.
E. Understand the historical, geographical or cultural time in which it is written.
F. Understand who was inspired to wr
ite the scripture and to whom it was being written.G. Use several translations to avoid the possible bias of one particular translator.
H. Define questionable words or phrases thru Bible dictionaries or Encyclopedias. Preferably ones that derive their definitions from the original languages. (again use several sources) Do not make the mistake of trying to research everything yourself. Refer to other experts in Greek and Hebrew. Always use the most common literal definition unless there is very clear evidence to use another. (bear in mind this evidence must also follow these hermeneutical principles)
I. Compare scripture with scripture. Compare a questionable scripture to other scriptures that use the same words or speak of the same concepts.J. Understand that God uses allegories and parables to teach spiritual truth.
K. God uses the physical realm to teach about the spiritual realm.
L. God lives out of our linear time frame and looks at things from an eternal perspective.M. The original text was not separated into chapter and verse. Many times one verse is directly related to, or part of, the verses before or after it. Many times they are connected by words such as “for” or “and”. (Furthermore for those more advanced in ancient manuscripts of scripture, much more weight should be placed on older copies of scripture then on more recent copies. (there is less chance for errors in copying)
P. The original text is written in several languages from several time periods and cultures. Hebrew writers think differently then those of us brought up in the modern world. Their writings also are effected by this difference. We must therefor understand how Hebrews thought and wrote. In the cases of the epistles, you must understand the culture and circumstances of the people to which the letter is written.
Q. In the case of seeming contradictions where one scripture says one thing and dozens say the opposite go with the preponderance of evidence. In other words side with the majority of clear scripture until the apposing scripture can be properly understood.
R. In the gospels Jesus uses a form of debate common among rabbis of that time. He would quote a portion of scripture and the Pharisees would know that He implied the entire context of that verse. In this manner he would allow them to see the conclusion he wanted them to see without pointing to it exactly. He led them to the truth without confrontation.
The key word is FUNCTION FUNCTION FUNCTION
Teaching’s purpose is to draw us closer in likeness and nature to Jesus.
Hi m42,
Imitating Christ is impossible without the empowerment by his Spirit and that Spirit which wrote scripture through men can only be simply grasped with the help of the inner Teacher.Christ spoke of Law to those under the Law who asked about it, and he showed also the better way open to all, through the veil of his flesh.
Matt 19
16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
INHERITANCE BY THE LAW FOR THE JEWS ONLY
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
THE BETTER WAY OPEN TO ALL
21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. “
Hi,
Thanks to WJ for this post.
'sermon by Martin Luther from his Church Postil, 1521-1522But if the Word had been in the beginning and not before
Page 181 —————————
the beginning, it must have begun to be before the beginning, and so the beginning would have been before the beginning, which would be a contradiction, and would be the same as though the beginning were not the beginning. Therefore it is put in a masterly way: In the beginning was the Word, so as to show that it has not begun, and consequently must necessarily have been eternal, before the beginning.
“And the Word was with God.”
21. Where else should it have been? There never was anything outside of God. Moses says the same thing when he writes: “God said, Let there be light.” Whenever God speaks the word must be with him. But here he clearly distinguishes the persons, so that the Word is a different person than God with whom it was. This passage of John does not allow the interpretation that God had been alone, because it says that something had been with God, namely, the Word. If he had been alone, why would he need to say: The Word was with God? To have something with him, is not to be alone or by himself.
It should not be forgotten that the Evangelist strongly emphasizes the little word “with.” For he repeats it, and clearly expresses the difference in persons to gainsay natural reason and future heretics. For while natural reason can understand that there is but one God, and many passages of Scripture substantiate it, and this is also true, yet the Scriptures also strongly oppose the idea that this same God is only one person.
22. Thus arose the heresy of Sabellius, who said: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are only one person. And again Arius, although he admitted that the Word was with God, would not admit that he was true God. The former confesses and teaches too great a simplicity of God; the latter too great a multiplicity. The former mingles the persons; the latter separates the natures. But the true Christian faith takes the mean, teaches and confesses separate persons and an undivided nature. The Father is a different person from the Son, but he is not another God. Natural reason can not comprehend this; it must be apprehended by faith alone. Natural
Page 182 —————————
reason produces error and heresy; faith teaches and maintains the truth; for it clings to the Scriptures, which do not deceive nor lie.
“And God was the Word.”
23. Since there is but one God, it must be true that God himself is the Word, which was in the beginning before all creation. Some change the order of the words and read: And the Word was God, in order to explain that this Word not only is with God and is a different person, but that it is also in its essence the one true God with the Father. But we shall leave the words in the order in which they now stand: And God was the Word; and this is also what it means; there is no other God than the one only God, and this same God must also essentially be the Word, of which the Evangelist speaks; so there is nothing in the divine nature which is not in the Word. It is clearly stated that this Word is truly God, so that it is not only true that the Word is God, but also that God is the Word.
24. Decidedly as this passage opposes Arius, who teaches that the Word is not God, so strongly it appears to favor Sabellius; for it speaks as though it mingled the persons, and thereby revokes or explains away the former passage, which separates the persons and says: The Word was with God.
But the Evangelist intentionally arranged his words so as to refute all heretics. Here therefore he overthrows Arius and attributes to the Word the true essential of the Godhead by saying: And God was the Word; as though he would say: I do not simply say, the Word is God, which might be understood as though the Godhead was only asserted of him, and were not essentially his, as you, Arius, claim; but I say: And God was the Word, which can be understood in no other way than that this same being which every one calls God and regards as such, is the Word.
Hi Tim2,
Indeed as catholic as the pope.” Natural reason can not comprehend this; it must be apprehended by faith alone. Natural'
Reliant on MYSTERIES
I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1. Views of Catholic and Protestant Historians
A. Johann von Dollinger
Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural.
(Grisar, VI, 268-269; Dollinger: Kirche und Kirchen, 1861, 68)B. Preserved Smith (S)
If any one still harbors the traditional prejudice that the early Protestants were more liberal, he must be undeceived. Save for a few splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the power to persecute they did.
(Smith, 177)C. Hartmann Grisar
At Zurich, Zwingli's State-Church grew up much as Luther's did . . . Oecolampadius at Basle and Zwingli's successor, Bullinger, were strong compulsionists. Calvin's name is even more closely bound up with the idea of religious absolutism, while the task of handing down to posterity his harsh doctrine of religious compulsion was undertaken by Beza in his notorious work, On the Duty of Civil Magistrates to Punish Heretics. The annals of the Established Church of England were likewise at the outset written in blood.
(Grisar, VI, 278)D. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (P)
The Reformers themselves . . . e.g., Luther, Beza, and especially Calvin, were as intolerant to dissentients as the Roman Catholic Church.
(Cross, 1383)2. The Double Standard of Protestant “Inquisition Polemics” (John Stoddard)
Religious persecution usually continues till one of two causes rises to repress it. One is the sceptical notion that all religions are equally good or equally worthless; the other is an enlightened spirit of tolerance, exercised towards all varieties of sincere opinion . . . inspired by the conviction that it is useless to endeavor to compel belief in any form of religion whatsoever. Unhappily this enlightened, tolerant spirit is of slow growth, and never has been conspicuous in history, but if it be asserted that very few Catholics in the past have been inspired by it, the same thing can be said of Protestants.
This fact is forgotten by Protestants. They read blood-curdling stories of the Inquisition and of atrocities committed by Catholics, but what does the average Protestant know of Protestant atrocities in the centuries succeeding the Reformation? Nothing, unless he makes a special study of the subject . . . Yet they are perfectly well known to every scholar . . . If I do not enumerate here the persecutions carried on by Catholics in the past, it is because it is not necessary in this book to do so. This volume is addressed especially to Protestants, and Catholic persecutions are to them sufficiently well known . . .Now granting for the sake of argument, that all that is usually said of Catholic persecutions is true, the fact remains that Protestants, as such, have no right to denounce them, as if such deeds were characteristic of Catholics only. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones . . .
It is unquestionable . . . that the champions of Protestantism – Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, Cranmer and Ridley — advocated the right of the civil authorities to punish the 'crime' of heresy . . . Rousseau says truly:
The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors . . .
Auguste Comte also writes:
The intolerance of Protestantism was certainly not less tyrannical than that with which Catholicism is so much reproached. (Philosophie Positive, IV, 51)
What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary doctrine of Protestantism — the right of private judgment in matters of religious belief! Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so!
Nor should we ever forget that . . . the Protestants were the aggressors, the Catholics were the defenders. The Protestants were attempting to destroy the old, established Christian Church, which had existed 1500 years, and to replace it by something new, untried and revolutionary. The Catholics were upholding a Faith, hallowed by centuries of pious associations and sublime achievements; the Protestants, on the contrary, were fighting for a creed . . . which already was beginning to disintegrate into hostile sects, each of which, if it gained the upper hand, commenced to persecute the rest! . . . All religious persecution is bad; but in this case, of the two parties guilty of it, the Catholics certainly had the more defensible motives for their conduct.At all events, the argument that the persecutions for heresy, perpetrated by the Catholics, constitute a reason why one should not enter the Catholic Church, has not a particle more force than a similar argument would have against one's entering the Protestant Church. In both there have been those deserving of blame in this respect, and what applies to one applies also to the other.
(Stoddard, 204-205, 209-210)
VI. DEATH AND TORTURE FOR CATHOLICS, PROTESTANT DISSIDENTS. AND JEWS
1. Luther
There are others who teach in opposition to some recognised article of faith which is manifestly grounded on Scripture and is believed by good Christians all over the world, such as are taught to children in the Creed . . . Heretics of this sort must not be tolerated, but punished as open blasphemers . . . If anyone wishes to preach or to teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master – namely, Master Hans .
(Janssen, X, 222; EA, Bd. 39, 250-258; Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530; cf. Durant, 423, Grisar, VI, 26-27)That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.
(Janssen, X, 222-223; pamphlet of 1536)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
